Tom Quach v. Ace Benedict Arca Lovalhato et al
Filing
16
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Clerk is also ordered to REOPEN this case and to accept Quachs First Amended Complaint and accompanying documents (ECF Nos. 1013).(Case reopened. MD JS-5.) (lc)
O
1
2
JS-5
3
4
5
6
United States District Court
Central District of California
7
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
ACE BENEDICT ARCA LOVALHATI;
AGRICULTURE; and DOES 1–10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
I.
19
22
23
24
25
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
18
21
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING
v.
17
20
Case № 2:15-cv-09341-ODW (SS)
TOM QUACH,
INTRODUCTION
On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff Tom Quach filed this action in federal court
based on alleged diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)
After reviewing Quach’s
Complaint, it is clear that (1) the suit against the United States Department of
Agriculture (“United States”) is barred by sovereign immunity, and (2) Defendant Ace
Benedict Arca Lovalhati (“Lovalhati”) is not diverse from Plaintiff Quach. Thus, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case at bar. Consequently, this action
is DISMISSED without prejudice. 1
26
27
28
1
After carefully considering Quach’s Complaint, the Court deems the matter appropriate for sua
sponte decision. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981).
II.
1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
This is a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Quach
3
alleges that, on April 2, 2014, Lovalhati, while driving his employer-issued vehicle,
4
failed to stop and collided with Quach’s vehicle. (Complaint [“Compl.”] ¶¶ 11–17,
5
ECF No. 1.) As a direct and proximate result of the accident, Quach claims he was
6
severely injured and has suffered great pain and suffering. (Id. ¶ 19.) In turn, Quach
7
claims that the United States, as Lovalhati’s employer, is responsible for Quach’s
8
injuries under the respondeat superior doctrine. (Id. ¶¶ 20–24.)
9
Plaintiff is a citizen of California. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant Lovalhati is likewise a
10
citizen of California. (Id.) Quach alleges that Defendant United States Department of
11
Agriculture is a “federal government department” and a “citizen of an unknown state.”
12
(Id. ¶ 3.) Quach claims that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1332 (“diversity” jurisdiction) and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
14
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Quach makes no claims for federal question
15
jurisdiction.
III.
16
LEGAL STANDARD
17
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the
18
Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v.
19
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have
20
jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where each
21
plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in
22
controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a). The court may dismiss the action sua
23
sponte where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Frankin, 662 F.2d at 1342
24
(citing Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir.
25
1974)). Moreover, where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, “it is not required
26
to issue a summons or follow the other procedural requirements.” Loux v. Rhay, 375
27
F.2d 55, 58 (9th Cir. 1967).
28
2
IV.
1
DISCUSSION
2
On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff Quach filed this action alleging claims wholly
3
based in state law and against a defendant with common citizenship. Simply stated,
4
this action cannot be originally filed in federal court because the complaint does not
5
competently allege facts supporting either diversity or federal question jurisdiction,
6
and therefore federal jurisdiction is improper. Frankin, 662 F.2d at 1342.
7
While Quach’s Complaint does name one potentially diverse defendant,2 the
8
United States, the well-settled doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit. The United
9
States cannot be sued without its explicit consent. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 195,
10
206 (1940); see also Lena v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (Rehabilitation Act
11
lacked “unequivocal expression” of congressional intent required for waiver of
12
sovereign immunity.) With no illusions to any statutes conferring such consent,
13
Quach’s suit against the United States is therefore barred.
14
Leaving only Lovalhati as a Defendant, Quach’s suit doubly fails for want of
15
diversity jurisdiction. The Supreme Court “ha[s] consistently interpreted § 1332 as
16
requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple
17
defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a
18
single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the
19
entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553
20
(2005).
21
Lovalhati is also a California citizen. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Thus, this destroys complete
22
diversity.
Here, Quach alleges that he is a California citizen, and that Defendant
23
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the action for lack of
24
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The action is dismissed
25
without prejudice. Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th
26
Cir. 1999) (“Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction ‘should be ... without prejudice so that
27
2
28
Because this action lacks complete diversity and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court will not assess
whether an allegation that a defendant is a “citizen of another state” will suffice to establish diversity jurisdiction.
(Compl. ¶ 3.)
3
1
a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.’” (quoting Frigard v. United
2
States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988)).
3
4
The Clerk is also ordered to REOPEN this case and to accept Quach’s First
Amended Complaint and accompanying documents. (ECF Nos. 10–13.)
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
December 14, 2015
9
10
11
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?